The "Childmyths" blog is a spin-off of Jean Mercer's book "Thinking Critically About Child Development: Examining Myths & Misunderstandings"(Sage, 2015; third edition). The blog focuses on parsing mistaken beliefs that can influence people's decisions about childrearing-- for example, beliefs about day care, about punishment, about child psychotherapies, and about adoption.
See also http://thestudyofnonsense.blogspot.com

John Jackson was given a sentence of probation and a
fine, while Carolyn Jackson was sent to prison for two years. Rather
ironically, it seems to me, it was argued that Major Jackson should not be
taken away from his children! One of the couple’s biological children testified
about the mistreatment of the foster/adoptive children, so one must wonder
about the advantage to him of having his father left available to him.

Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of 15 to 19
years because of the intensity and duration of the abuse. The judge, Katharine
Hayden, cited John Jackson’s military record as a reason for giving him
probation only—a decision whose implications for punishment of other abusive military
people are limited only by one’s imagination. Hayden did agree that Carolyn
Jackson had endangered the children’s welfare, and indeed breaking someone’s spine
or inducing hypernatremia can scarcely be argued to be in their best interests,
even by defense lawyers.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, ”Defense attorneys argued during the trial that the
Jacksons’ child-rearing methods might have been objectionable but they didn’t
constitute crimes, and that the foster children had preexisting health
problems.” Granted that desperate lawyers seek desperate arguments, this one
nevertheless seems to be not just one but several pips. First, hot-saucing and
forced feeding of salt certainly would be crimes if they were committed against
adults. Second, let’s look at other forms of corporal punishment. Although
spanking of children remains legal, the cut-off point for its legitimacy is
usually considered to be the point where its intensity or duration leave
physical evidence in the form of bruises or other injuries; when this occurs, this
form of punishment becomes abuse. The parallel for other methods of physical
discipline would reasonably be that a method that causes visible physical harm,
like blistering from hot sauce or hypernatremia from forced salt ingestion,
rises (or sinks) to the level of abuse and is far beyond being merely “objectionable”.
I believe this argument is an adequate counter to the claim that the Jacksons’
actions did not constitute crimes.

Now, let’s look at the second part of the defense
attorneys’ argument: the foster children had preexisting health problems. Now
we are definitely in an upside-down moral universe! “The children were in poor
health and developmentally delayed; therefore it was permissible—perhaps even
advisable?—to brutalize them. This would teach them not to be so sick and
motivate them to speed up their development.” Outrageous to state this baldly,
of course, but is this not the implication of the defense argument? In fact, in
reality, the children’s health and developmental problems made them especially
vulnerable to the impact of abuse, and according to their present foster
mother, they continue to bear the emotional scars of their time in the Jackson
household.

Why did the Jacksons treat the children as they did?
Evidently, they offered their biological children the explanation that it was
necessary to discipline the foster children in these ways. The parents did not
use the same methods with the biological children, although Carolyn Jackson
apparently gave a thorough belting to her son when she discovered that he had
told a family friend how the foster children were treated. Did the Jacksons
believe that the methods they were using were actually a form of intervention,
a “treatment” that would help the foster children get onto an improved
developmental trajectory? It’s possible that they did think this; they may have
been using a version of the Nancy Thomas treatment in which food and water are
withheld to motivate children to comply with parental demands, or they may have
believed that the children were possessed by demons and that the demons could
be expelled by discomfort, allowing the children to return to normal health and
development.

It’s also possible that what we see in the Jackson
case is simply the perpetuation of the “good, old-fashioned” view of physical
punishment as the cure for all childhood behavior problems, and the assumption
that whatever punishments were familiar in one’s own early life are the best
way to guide children today. This view is sometimes associated with the belief
that following one’s parents’ child-rearing ways shows respect for the parents,
and failing to do so shows disrespect. In families and subcultures where lack
of respect for parents has a strong religious implication of disrespect for
divine authority, this can be a powerful factor. There are many unanswered
questions about the role of religious belief (including assumptions about demon
possession) in this case, but religious positions have played such important
roles in other child abuse cases that I think it is a mistake to ignore this as
we try to understand what happened here.

Finally, with all due respect to the thousands of
well-functioning military families, it would be absurd to ignore the part
played here by authoritarian attitudes that punish deliberate and inadvertent
disobedience equally. John Jackson has been administratively separated from the
Army and I cannot find whether he is actually discharged, either honorably or
otherwise. His military record has saved him from imprisonment in the civilian
world, but there may be a limit to what even the military can tolerate,
especially because this matter became public knowledge and makes the military look
bad, which officers are not supposed to do—in church terms, it’s like causing
scandal in the congregation.

Many questions remain unanswered about the Jackson
case. I hope further investigation will occur and be made public. The U.S
attorney is apparently considering an appeal… and there remains a question
about why the Jacksons were never charged with the death of one of the
children. Another desirable investigation would look into the conduct of caseworkers responsible for monitoring the foster children.

5 comments:

Religion is not to blame. These people do not be cruel to the native children .... although the reason for the cruel punishment can always be found. Children are not angels. The adopted or biological children are not constantly ideal behavior. But the ill-treatment was applied only to non-native children. Strangers do not mind? When a child is sick mother .... it hurts the whole family. But when a foreign child is crying in pain and humiliation ....... heart of the adoptive parents remain silent. Maybe adoptive parents should be forced to read fairy tales about evil step daughter and machine? Every nation has such tales in folklore. It will be useful for adoptive parents than the book Nancy Thomas.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRQUXQM_jgU

Dear Mihail-- I don't think you understand some of the very fundamentalist religious beliefs to be found in the U.S. I am not saying that they cause abusive treatment of children, but I do say that they can be used to justify abuse and to frame it as the right way to treat a child whose disobedience or aloofness are understood as signs of a sinful nature or even of demonic possession. Missionaries for these beliefs are in Russia,too, I am sorry to say.

I guess I do not understand many things .... but normal people should have a conscience, and compassion for children. I have long realized that the books of Thomas Nznsi red line is the idea that children are sinful from birth and may be possessed by the devil. But I think that this view does not depend on religion, but on the personality of the adopter. Nancy Thomas dictator in nature. She wants absolute power over children. She does not feel the action and ideally wants to achieve absolute obedience. In addition, any religion requires obedience to religious canons. People who used to trust and obey implicitly believe ..... strong personality. It is a good soil for planting Attachments therapy. However, not all believers are a zombie and neumeyuschih think. If a person does not use cruelty to native children but uses violence against the adopted child ..... does this man realizes his natural sklonost to sadism. Impunity and Attachments therapists encourage that these sadistic tendencies in some people. A normal person in their right mind would zdravoi purposefully and systematically torturing the child. Certainly possible nervous breakdown and natural aggression by an adult. This weak nerves or systematic fatigue. This weakness. But if the adopter applies systematically abuse ...... this is sadism. I think so.For what the child has to suffer? What purpose wants to achieve sadistic caregiver? The child must be bestrashny powerful warrior - defender of the fatherland? NO! The child should be obedient slave and be convenient for the adopter. Trash target.

About Me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Mercer

Jean Mercer has a Ph.D in Psychology from Brandeis University, earned when that institution was 20 years old (you do the math). She is Professor Emerita of Psychology at Richard Stockton College, where for many years she taught developmental psychology, research methods, perception, and history of psychology. Since about 2000 her focus has been on potentially dangerous child psychotherapies, and she has published several related books and a number of articles in professional journals.
Her CV can be seen at http://childmyths.blogspot.com/2009/12/curriculum-vitae-jean.mercer-richard.html.